The judge
said: “My conclusion that the evidence
in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any
positive way that these events never happened. “

She said:

charming and charismatic

smitten

PLAY

sweet and humble

funny, intelligent, charming and nice

Love Bug not a Hummer

softness, kindness, safe

flirting, kissing

hair grabbed and yanked “really, really
hard”

“what have I gotten into here?”

painful

do you like it like that?

confusing

unsure what to think

doesn’t know his own strength?

really intended to hurt?

uneventful

flirting

pub

at his home

music playing

drink, charming

“out of the blue”

hair pulled

head punched

pulled to her knees

like walking into a pole

fear of passing out

rage gone

“you should go”

thrown out like trash

never considered calling the police

who would listen?

BUT:

didn’t consistently mention kissing in all reports

hair extensions or not?

head smashed against the window or not?

thrown to the ground or pulled
to the ground?

yoga moves or not?

and no Love Bug at the time

failed to disclose her after-the-fact conduct

flirtatious emails, bikini shot, watching
Play – traumatized or not?

The judge said: “The expectation of how a victim of abuse
will, or should, be expected to behave must not be assessed on the basis of
stereotypical models”. [However, her
behaviour is]“at the very least, odd”.

Verdict:
not reliable.

Next, she
said:

Banff Film Festival

playful, flirtatious, fun to be with

dinner, conversation

wanted to “just hold her”

“cheesy” and a “put on”

awkward attempt at a kiss

house tour, organized, well kept

a kiss

hand on the throat, pushed against the
wall, choking, slapping

shocked, surprised, bewildered

act calm

as if nothing happened

listening to music

playing his guitar

a kiss good night

a mistake?
a one off event?

more socializing

moody but not violent

Gemini awards

touched her neck

a reminder?

didn’t report

thought it wasn’t serious enough

she wasn’t “beaten to pieces … broken and
raped”

came forward when police asked

BUT:

awkward attempt at a kiss or not?

late disclosure of love letter, sending
flowers, karaoke, proposition

choking and then slapping or vice
versa or push, slap, slap, pause,
slap?

The judge said: “It
is difficult for me to believe that someone who was choked as part of a sexual
assault, would consider kissing sessions with the assailant both before and
after the assault not worth mentioning when reporting the matter to the police.
I can understand being reluctant to mention it, but I do not understand her
thinking that it was not relevant.”

The judge said: Sending flowers is “an odd behaviour” if a
man has just choked you.

The judge said: “I acknowledge that the Court must guard
against assuming that seemingly odd reactive behaviour of a complainant
necessarily indicates fabrication. However, this is an illustration of the
witness’s actual behaviour, evidenced by her own written expressions.”

The judge said: “It may be entirely natural for a victim of
abuse to become involved in an advocacy group. However, the manner in which Ms.
DeCoutere embraced and cultivated her role as an advocate for the cause of
victims of sexual violence may explain some of her questionable conduct as a
witness in these proceedings.”

Verdict:
not reliable.

And finally, she said:

“making out” on a park bench

neck squeeze, hands, teeth, uncomfortable,
hard to breathe

nothing said

imprecise description, still “trying to
figure it out”

came forward later in response to police
request

BUT:

claimed not to have discussed with other
complainant, but 5000 emails

wanted to “sink the prick” – revenge or “legitimate feelings of victims of
abuse”?

late disclosure of her after-the-fact conduct

said she kept her distance, but later
admitted “messing around” with him in her home, emailing him to go for a drink

The judge said: “Playing chicken [with the justice
system. Hoping to get by with] half truths.”

Verdict:
not reliable.

presumption of innocence … fundamental
right of every accused

proof beyond a reasonable doubt ... not
absolute or scientific certainty, but close to this

not enough even if you believe the accused
is probably guilty or likely guilty

similar act evidence inadmissible – each
charge has to be determined on its own

that is, it doesn’t matter that she said,
she said, and she said

no need for corroboration

here, “Nothing in addition to the
complainants’ word”

here, no “smoking gun”

credibility is key

But she said, she said, and she said.

The
judge said: “I have a firm understanding
that the reasonableness of reactive human behaviour in the dynamics of a
relationship can be variable and unpredictable. However, the twists and turns
of the complainants’ evidence in this trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant
in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault
complainants are always truthful.”

According
to the judge:

impossible to have faith in reliability and sincerity of complainants
reasonable doubt
acquittal
not the same as deciding that these events never happened

Criminal
law isn’t about what happened. It’s
about proving that it did.